Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 020

Thursday, April 25 2002

• Re: segulot
• Re: Zohar Chadash
• RE: Zohar Chadash
• Re: Zohar Chadash
• Re: Zohar Chadash
• Re: Natural law and halacha
• Simchas Chasan Kallah
• R. Kook and mourning for irreligious victims of murder
• Re: shatz
• Re: shatz
• Re: shatz
• Re: shatz
• Re: "al tischaber leRosho" and Tinok Shenishba
• Re: Segulos
• RE Rav Kook and zealotry
• Re: oxen, jeeps, and rabbinic taciturnity
• Rashi/Rashbam
• Re: ma'ariv before tzeis hakochavim
• Re: Oat & spelt in 5 minim?
• The Free Market and Creationism

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 11:35:12AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>: This is the thread that RAM tried to get started. Not everything
>: unnatural is classified as kishuf, but some things are...

Micha Berger wrote:
> Ah, but you were arguing that nothing (except perhaps neis) is
> unnatural. So what's this?

It is your terminology.

>: Take, for example, the amora whose water was drawn by a sheid.
>: Don't physicists study movement of water?

> Not all movement. For example, they don't study the motivations
> and psychology of human water drawers either.

But they do study the physiology of how humans draw water. Since you have
been claiming that sheidim are not physical I have given you an example
of a physical effect they perform. I would think that physicists would
be particularly interested in a non-physical being which can draw water.

>: But remember when you chided RAF for taking sides in the machloketh
>: rishonim about the existence of sheidim...

> I'm trying to cast their ideas into the garments of 21st century
> science. To say it can't be done is to assume those ideas aren't
> Torah or that modern science is further from emes than Aristotle's
> was.

That was also RAF's motivation.

>: Notice that you are even contradicting yourself on this point: compare
>: your list of segulos (commented on below) with your ancient definition
>: (which seems to exclude sechar mitzva):
>:> I'm talking about things like the power of putting Seifer Razi'el
>:> haMal'ach in a baby's crib.

>: Doesn't the Rambam say...

> You mean rabbi "there is no segulah or real kishuf"? Aren't we trying
> to explain the /other/ shitah?

You missed my explanatory posting.  Ayyein sham.

> But then they are a different kind of segulah: a mitzvah for which one
> can pre-know the kind of sechar. Thinking over my list again (e.g.
> pesichah's impact on child birth) most of my examples were of this sort.

This is not unheard of.  Examples include: shiluach hakan and kibbud av vaeim
and shemittah.  There are also aveiroth of this type (e.g. shemitta again).

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 12:23:39AM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
>: I am leaning very strongly to believe that the main difference is whether
>: the source is in kedusha or tumah. Call it "white magic" and "black magic"
>: if you like...

This introduces new terminology, but I'm not sure it adds content.  Is there a
way to know the source? What about hashbaath sheidim? What's its source?

(back to RMB)

> theurgy is the art of doing the will of God, thaumaturgy is trying to
> get God to do man's will. I would identify the latter with kishuf --
> in ADDITION to idolatry.

Now we're back to the transistor problem.

David Riceman

Arie Folger wrote:
> Zohar 'Hadash, as its name implies, is probably of later import, and indeed
> deals with different themes than gufei Zohar, and mentions the 'havraye (RSBY
> and his minyan) very little if at all, even as they play a major role in some
> of the other sections. The Z'H was probably written early in the 14th
> century.

The story I heard is that it is a printing of parts of the Zohar (in the
wide sense) which didn't get printed the first time around. Certainly the
naive reader (i.e. me) gets that impression. It consists of selections
from the same bunch of books as the Zohar, in the same style, but in
different proportions.

David Riceman

Arie Folger wrote:
>> Zohar 'Hadash, as its name implies, is probably of later import, and indeed
>> deals with different themes than gufei Zohar, and mentions the 'havraye (RSBY
>> and his minyan) very little if at all, even as they play a major role in some
>> of the other sections. The Z'H was probably written early in the 14th
>> century.

From: David Riceman [mailto:dr@insight.att.com] 
> The story I heard is that it is a printing of parts of the Zohar (in the
> wide sense) which didn't get printed the first time around. Certainly the
> naive reader (i.e. me) gets that impression. It consists of selections
> from the same bunch of books as the Zohar, in the same style, but in
> different proportions.

Just to add that AIUI, Moshe Idel (supposedly the leading academic scholar
on Kabbalah today) believes that even if R Moshe de Leon wrote the Zohar, it
was based on traditions that had been passed on for generations.  Perhaps
that is true of Zohar Chadash as well.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Reb David Riceman:
>> The story I heard is that it is a printing of parts of the Zohar (in the
>> wide sense) which didn't get printed the first time around.
>> Certainly the naive reader (i.e. me) gets that impression. It consists of
>> selections from the same bunch of books as the Zohar, in the same style,
>> but in different proportions.

But the style and content is markedly different.

Reb Feldman, Mark wrote:
> Just to add that AIUI, Moshe Idel (supposedly the leading academic scholar
> on Kabbalah today) believes that even if R Moshe de Leon wrote the Zohar,
> it was based on traditions that had been passed on for generations. 
> Perhaps that is true of Zohar Chadash as well.

Perhaps, but you oversimplify Idel's position. Let me summarize Idel's 
'hiddush.

Gershom Scholem, the foundator of academic study of kabbalah, maintained, in 
oposition to the popular scholarly view of 'hassiedim bashers of the 19th 
century, that mysticism has continually been part of Jewish religion. That 
was a step forward from Graetz and co. who considered kabbalah to be in the 
realm of bubbah ma'ases, r.l.

Being a historian and librarian, GS looked at the written record and how the 
written record testifies to ongoing innovatino in kabbalistic writings. To 
oversimplify, for Scholem, if something appeared in print for the first time 
in a given year, say 1204, then it must have been innovated around that time. 
He laboured a lot to show that such approach is valid, quoting sources that 
attributed rav Avraham Av Beit Din's kabbalah to gilui Eliyahu, etc.

GS wa adamant that kabbalah was distinct from other forms of Jewish mysticism, 
such as merkava mysticism (dated between Tannaim and early Gaonim) and a few 
other forms). Thus, GS concluded that Zohar contained very little ancient 
material. This was his main shittah, and was a reversal from an essay written 
in, IIRC, Mada'ei haYahadut, 1926, where he argued for the antiquity of teh 
Zohar.

GS wasn't me'hadesh that RMIShDL most likely wrote the Zohar, that was rav 
Yitz'hak demin Acco and some othr rishonim. Look in the long, long intro to 
"The Wisdom of the Zohar" by Yeshayah (Isaia) Tishbi (Hebrew and English 
editions exist) were he quotes in extenso the various pieces of evidence.

The evidence is overwhelming, including Aramaic that contains, by all non 
Zoharic standards, numerous mistakes (that's an issue of perspective) in 
grammar, words that appear nowhere else, words that represent concepts 
unknown in antiquity but well known in 13th century and quoted in Moreh 
Nevikhim, 'hiddushim that appeared 20 years or so before the publication of 
the Zohar in RMIShTDL's Hebrew works without attribution, contradictions in 
factual matters between Zohar and Talmud Bavli, etc. etc.

GS states that even though Zohar is a 'hiddush, it was accepted among the 
contemporaries of RMIShTDL as genuine, because even though it is a 'hiddush 
compared to earlier kabbalah, teh 'hiddushim were not uniquely RMIShTDL's, 
but those that were well accepted by his kabbalist-contemporaries, and thus, 
instead of shocking, merely confirmed then contemporary scholarship.

Moshe Idel' 'hiddush, a thing the fruhm world has known for a long time, is 
that even though the Zohar is mostly RMIShTDL's creation (with some material 
such as Zohar 'Hadash being later), it represents partly an unbroken chain of 
tradition. To GS's question re: the written record he replies that, being 
Torat haSod, kabbalists were very reluctant to write down kabbalah, and thus 
written material can represent traditions that are several centuries old.

Idel's 'hiddush notwithstanding, the Zohar, according to him and most 
academics, as well as some rishonim and a'haronim who preceded the acdemics 
by many years, is RMIShTDL's work, full of 'hiddushim that are nowhere to be 
found or even approached in their novelty in the kabbalah that was written 
before or is reflective of the more ancient tradition.

Although I do not wish to advocate one view or another here, I will quote rav 
Ya'akov Emden: although it appears that the Zohar is not ancient, and I 
[arie] will add that many ideas in the Zohar are most likely not ancient 
either, it pains to point out this truth, as the Zohar is still a holy book 
and part of the kabbalistic massorah (albeit with plenty of 'hiddushim - 
arie), and RYE was afraid that people may come to disrespect the work (and so 
should we).

Arie Folger

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:15:29PM -0400, Arie Folger wrote:
: Moshe Idel' 'hiddush, a thing the fruhm world has known for a long time, is 
: that even though the Zohar is mostly RMIShTDL's creation (with some material 
: such as Zohar 'Hadash being later), it represents partly an unbroken chain of 
: tradition. To GS's question re: the written record he replies that, being 
: Torat haSod, kabbalists were very reluctant to write down kabbalah, and thus 
: written material can represent traditions that are several centuries old.
...
: Although I do not wish to advocate one view or another here, I will quote rav 
: Ya'akov Emden: although it appears that the Zohar is not ancient, and I 
: [arie] will add that many ideas in the Zohar are most likely not ancient 
: either, it pains to point out this truth, as the Zohar is still a holy book 
: and part of the kabbalistic massorah (albeit with plenty of 'hiddushim - 
: arie), and RYE was afraid that people may come to disrespect the work (and so 
: should we).

Mah beinayhu? In earlier conversations on Avodah, I took it as a given
that RYE was saying the same thing you call "Moshe Idel's 'hiddush".
That's how I read it.

Both are saying that the core of the Zohar is a tradition from RShBY,
but there was much accretion by the time it got published.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 27th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            3 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Yesod sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (413) 403-9905                   taking control result in relationship?

In a shiur circa 1970 or 1972 on the Aseres HaDibros, RYBS referred to
natural law as those aspects of creation that were governed by Elokim
as the midas hadin such as scientific facts and physical phenomema.

For instance, he mentioned that is a diabetic dies because he fails or
ignores to take his insulin, that would be a function of the natural law
taking its cours. Other examples mentioned included the use of illegal
drugs and sexual promiscuity.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 Micha Berger posted: 
> From: NISHMA <nishma@interlog.com>
...
> Rabbi Benjamin Hecht

> I am told that there was a Chassidic Rebbe who questioned the purpose
> of the command of mesame'ach chattan v'kallah, ... Why is this
> necessary? ... The Chassidic Rebbe responded that indeed while there
> is much joy, there is also trepidation. The new couple are inherently
> nervous about their new lives together. The command of mesame'ach chattan
> v'kallah calls upon us to attempt to alleviate or minimize these feelings
> of stress.

FWIW, another Halachic purpose generated by the Simcha could be as
follows:

Rav Hutner ZT"L stated that the Chiyuv of Simcha at a Chasunah is a
communal one, to celebrate the newly established opportunity for the
Klal to add new members (i.e. the children to be born) from this Chasan
& Kallah. To this I have added that when the Gemara (Pesachim 49a-b)
describes a good marriage (Davar Na'eh U'Miskabel) and a bad one that
is not Miskabel, Rashi adds the word "LaShom'im", suggesting that some
sort of "approval" is being sought from the Klal that this marriage is
acceptable. Keeping in mind Rav Hutner's pshat, this approval may be
based on Halachic reasons, since the Klal certainly doesn't want new
"members" who are Chalalim or Mamzerim. As such, the MisKabel LaShom'im
is Halachic approval of a marriage, which is something we can give to
the Chasan & Kallah to enhance a day already suffused with Simcha.

Stuart Goldstein 

See "Al bamotayikh Halalim" in Maamrei haReiyah where he has serious
doubts about they may be mourned and then tries very hard to find a
basis for permitting it.

I don't know if this is the source alluded to by R. Waldenberg as I
don't have the book handy.

RET wrote:
> According to halacha someone requested to be chazan should refuse 2
> times and accept only on the third time.
> I have great difficulties with this. First most gabbaim don't know the
> halacha and when someone frefuses they go to the next person.
>
> Second in many shuls it is difficult to find a volunteer to be chazan.
> If the gabbai asks each person 3 times in order to find out that he really
> does not want to be chazzan it is a royal pain for everyone involved

I had an epiphany WRT this halakhah about one week ago. I am taking my last 
class toward my MBA. It's called conflict and negotiation, and we dedicated 
one session to culture clashes and their roles in spoiling negotiations. Most 
of the students are foreignes, and many contributed their stories of shocking 
differences between the US and hteir home country. One Danish guy born to 
Polish parents who worked as an intermediary for a Danish CEO when dealing 
with Poles pointed out his boss wouldn't get it. In Poland you ALWAYS refuse 
anything twice, and then begrudgingly accept the third time, even though you 
are very eager to do a deal. This is seen as a form of politeness.

Thus, may be that halakhah is the result of minhag hamakom of  toshvei haaretz 
terem bau bnei Yisrael lagur sham, and is thus (if I am right) definitely not 
applicable in Western lands. Americans are, acc. to that guy, shockingly 
direct. A Russian Jew who emigrated to Israel and now lives here concurred 
and added that Israeli are even more shockingly direct (as if this were a 
surprise to anybody).

Arie Folger
-- 
It is absurd to seek to give an account of the matter to a man 
who cannot himself give an account of anything; for insofar as
he is already like this, such a man is no better than a vegetable.
           -- Book IV of Aristotle's Metaphysics

[Identical quote from RET, deleted. -mi]

Does saying "I'd rather not, but if you can't find someone else, I'll
do it" solve the problem? It's a kind of refusal but let's the gabbai
know that you're available.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

[Identical quote from RET, deleted. -mi]

M'sarvin l'katan v'ain m'sarvin l'gadol. This sounds like an argument for
the gabbai being a talmid chacham - at least in shuls where people know
the halacha well enough to know that they're supposed to refuse twice.

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

[MSB: A similar email, from R' Joel Rich <Joelirich@aol.com>:]

When I asked this question of my posek his response was that I should see to 
it that the gabbaim got educated.

kt
joel rich

Reb Eli Turkel  brought a common dilemma:
[The same quote, again mostly deleted. -mi]
> Second in many shuls it is difficult to find a volunteer to be chazan. ...

Personally I've taken a dual approach to this, since I usually enjoy
being Shatz :-)

1. Based on the concept of Ein Mesarvim L'Godol, if somebody "important"
   asks me to be Shatz I usually agree w/o siruv. (Father, Rav or similar).

2. If "nobody" wants to be shatz then, so that it shouldn't like davening
   is an "Ol"/burden, I skip the siruv part, or I actively volunteer.

3. If a gabbai is simply trying to "honor" me, then I do siruv - and
   usually loose the Omud as RET noted above.

4. If I've already davened once or twice in a place then I usually give
   myself the din of "rogil" and skip the siruv.

I have no/little basis for this in written halocho - just a mix of being
the son of a Chazzan ("I naturally never saw my Dad doing siruv") and
being a bit of an Omud-chapper :-)

- Danny

I wrote:
>add to it the Chiddushei HaRaman to Bava Metzia 74 (I think that is the 
>source).

Sorry.  Chiddushei HaRamban, Bava Metzia 73a sv ve'od

>The Rashbash also has a teshuvah in agreement.

#89

Micha Berger wrote:
>Curious to hear a summary, or to get the article (if RSCarmy permits).

The article was a long review of Marvin Fox's life and achievements,
with a little lamenting that Torah uMada is not developing in exactly
the way that he wants it to. The "Natural Law" issue was a tiny mention.

Gil Student

I wrote:
> : True. In a world without black magic, a rational world, there is no place
> : for such segulot. The only thinkg you might, unconvincingly in many
> : cases, try, is to restate them as sa'har veonesh.

RMB replied:
> But then they are a different kind of segulah: a mitzvah for which one
> can pre-know the kind of sechar. Thinking over my list again (e.g.
> pesichah's impact on child birth) most of my examples were of this sort.

I thought I was explicit enough. Acc. to Rambam, the psi'hah for childbirth 
may not make any sense. I (asked for psi'hah at my wife's behest and) 
rationalized once that even though I see no connection between one and the 
other, it was nonetheless a beautiful minhag, as it drew a parallel between 
childbirth and taking the Torah out for communal learning. It adhering to 
this minhag, the parent effectively affirms his hope that the child will 
become a living sefer Torah. Thus, from that perspective, nothing to do with 
ease of birth (my wife, BTW, had lots of trouble with that child, whereas, 
with the second, I didn't have the opportunity to try - the baby was born two 
weeks early and within 50 minutes of arriving, inside my wife, to the 
hospital ;-)) but withaffirming Torah to be the supreme goal of the child.

BTW, as far as mitzvot themselves are concerned, Rambam is not entirely clear 
on this, but it would be easy to argue that for him, even that skhar is 
metaphysical/'olam habah, and only seems to be physical skhar. The only 
place, AFAIK, where he discusses clearly a physical skhar is in a context of 
skhar mitzvah mitzvah, that one merits an easier life so that he may do more 
mitzvot. Even then, Rambam is not guaranteeing results and not treating it as 
a segulah, rather as sakhar veonesh.

Me, continued:
: My understanding is that kishuf acc. to Rambam is the supernatural
: doesn't exist, period...

RMB's reply:
But we conceded the Rambam's shitah. The question was in understanding
the rov who are choleiq.

Turn back to my complete post; you will see that I used Rambam's position to 
force you to fit segulot according to the 
believers-in-black-magic-who-aren't-convinced-by-science shittah. Rambam was 
cited to demonstrate what the result of going down Science Avenue is. Indeed, 
you inherently agree with the idea that segulot are only for the black magic 
believers when you state that <<Using a metaphysical idea to wallpaper over 
ignorance of physics is a no-win battle. You might as well go with shitas 
haRambam.>>


RMB:
<<I would like to suggest a different chiluq, one raised in sifrei kefirah
(books of Enochian Gnosticism, "Xian Qabbala", "Magick" and the like):
theurgy is the art of doing the will of God, thaumaturgy is trying to
get God to do man's will. I would identify the latter with kishuf --
in ADDITION to idolatry. AZ itself includes more than idolatry anyway.
This would explain why one may not use pesuqim for refu'ah.>>

Interesting distinction. BTW, I think it is entirely appropriate to quote 
sifrei kofrim to define kishuf; it's their domain.

RMB:
<<I was /trying/ to say that the general notion of segulah can't be simply
dismissed because shas is replete with things later identified as what
you're calling "glatt segulos".>>

Not sure the 'Hazal argument is so strong. Rambam dismissed it. Gra (as per my 
paper I once emailed to RMB and that is available upon request) opposed 
Rambam's attitude not because it rejected some maamarei 'Hazal, but because 
the basis for Rambam's rejection is Aristotle, which is not pure logic and 
science, but adulterated with Aristotle's dogmas which are no sounder than 
our traditional beliefs.

Those who reject the 'Hazal argument entirely (meaning they are not explaining 
'Hazal as nishtaneh hatev'a or that the 'Hazal is a mashal or whatever) and 
accept the maamarim at face value in spite of pretty strong evidence, explain 
kishuf in terms of magic, not kishuf of the gaps, to paraphrase you. Thus, 
it's either science without segulot or segulot without scientific rationale. 
(we can debate, in a different thread, whether the 'strong' evidence is 
really so strong, although I won't argue much as my knowledge of both physics 
and kishuf falls short ;-))

Arie Folger

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
> I was recently researching the issue of aveilus for a non religious Jew
> who was killed by a non Jew. The Tzits Eliezar has a tshuva (vol 10 #41.5)
> on the matter which he introduces with a quote from Rav Kook which seems
> totally out of character - strongly lauding zealotry.

Zealotry - as in kano'us?

SBA

Reb David Riceman asks
> The gemara says that chazal wanted to ban beheimot gasot from Eretz
> Yisrael, but they were unable to do so.  The comment is hardly unusual -
> there are several remarks in chazal about gezeirot that chazal wanted to
> implement but couldn't.

> Why is it useful for us to know the details of these gezeirot?

I can think of 2 reasons:

- So that nobody comes later and tries to claim that the gezaira was
  successfully enacted.

- So that we don't wonder why such a gezaira was never enacted.

- Danny

We recently passed the point in the daf where we switctched to Rashbam
from Rashi. There's one girsa that says "kan met Rashi". I remember
learning that Rashi had edited his own perush at least once. Any
explanation why we don't have/use his earlier version here?

KT
Joel Rich

In a message dated 4/14/02 6:20:35pm EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
>But I sense an inconsistency: If Alenu is based on standard practice,
>then there ought to be an Alenu after every Shacharis, even when 
>followed  by Musaf.

This is precisely as is done in Vizhnitz. This perplexes first-timers
on a Shabbos, who think that perhaps the others are finishing mussaf
and can't figure out where they lost track.

-- 
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

RRW wrote:
>AFAIK There are 2 schools amongst Sephardim re: Rice on Passover
>1) Ones that inspect 3 times  and eat
>2) those that do not instpect

I presume that the second school refers to those that do not inspect, and 
eat,

There is a third school among Sefaradim; viz., not to eat rice.
Some Moroccans act according to this.

-- 
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

I know, you saw the subject line and thought "mah inyan shemittah eitzel
har Sinai?"

I recently read a web page that had an interesting ha'arah.

Proving that there was a beri'ah usually involves some version of an
argument by design. That is to say that the existance of order in the
beri'ah argues in favor of a borei.

Capitalism's notion of a free market relies on the idea that order /can/
emerge spontaneously from chaos.

The web page author made the observation that the usual American
right-left dichotomy has each side holding a tarta disasrei. The
religious right are the ones most likely to espouse a literal creationist
philosophy, yet also be republicans supporting a free market. Do
they believe that order can arise without intentional guidance or
not? Similarly for the radical intellectual who promotes Darwinism and
yet also believes in more gov't involvement in the market -- he too
is inconsistant.

This lead me to wonder about the Torah: What is halachah's stance WRT the
market, and is it consistant with various shitos in Bereishis pereq aleph?

I'm no economist, so I never learnt the inyanim that define a free
market. But three dinim came to mind. I don't claim they're an exhaustive
list, but perhaps they outline an general attitude toward economics
that is sufficient for answering the beri'ah question. I EAGERLY invite
comments and other examples.

1- Ona'ah: Prices aren't totally fixed, and they aren't totally free --
they're bounded to a range.

2- Hasagas gevul: Market competition is only allowed in markets large
enough to support more the one competitor.

3- Tov'ei ha'ir have the authority, but no chiyuv, to fix a minimum wage.
This would imply that there are times when intentional guidance is
necessary, but no concrete rules about when those times might be.

In all three cases, we do not pin the market, we give it freedom within
a limited range.

(OTOH, calling charity "tzedaqah" implies that redistribution of wealth
is justice, not beyond the call of duty, chessed. I have no idea what
to do with this, particularly since it's part of a more general category
that /is/ called gemillus chassadim.)

This notion of freedom within a limited range does have meaning in chaos
theory. In chaos theory, there is a notion of state space; a "space"
whose axis are the various free variables that describe the possible
states of the system. Systems tend toward certain equilibria, those are
therefore called "attractors". Which attractor you end up at depends on
the system's current location in that state space.

For example, a coin toss has three possible equilibrium end states: heads,
tails, and balanced on its edge. Of those only two are attractors; the
equilibrium of perfectly balanced on its edge isn't stable enough to be
the end state of too many starting conditions.

In a free but bounded system, we're keeping the state of the system close
to a particular attractor or set of attractors. Without actually forcing
the system into the end state manually, we still guarantee a particular
end state.

This is most consistant with belief in an intentional but natural
creation. That Hashem set up a system that was guided, but not
supernaturally forced, into the desired product. This would admit the
possibility of random pressures, but only random within a range of values
intentionally selected by the Borei.

Thoughts?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 28th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Malchus sheb'Netzach: What role does
Fax: (413) 403-9905          domination or taking control play in building brotherhood?

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]